I dont think thats what i said. I think what i said is its total bull chit. abiogenesis is an ancient concept that hasnt been held up with the progression of science. probably the most embarrassing moment was the retraction of the "RNA world hypothesis" (we were blinded by our belief)

things are so bad now with abiogenesis hypothesis atheists/antitheists have moved on to panspermia AKA the aliens did it and the funny thing about that is it accepts a creator and its not biched about. so obviously a creator isnt the problem but its the God idea that is objected to...........rather unscientific?

The only thing I extracted from that is abiogenesis is bullshit because

1) It hasn't held up with the progression of science

2) The retraction of the RNA world hypothesis


Is this accurate?

seems to be a fair assessment, if your a science guy following the science. but i would add a 3rd science now seems to be accepting of panspermia? why would that be if abiogenesis is solid?. remember the dawkins vid?

Moderator pmed me telling me to stop spamming this topic. I'm not spamming and I never have. If I get punished for this then that is evidence of corruption by allowing only the doctrine to speak. There is more proof of religious tyranny.

lol

Yes why? Living matter cannot come from non living short of a miracle.

Tit 3:9 ¶ But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
(KJV)

the kingdom of heaven is a measure of leaven:
misery and 5genocide:💉 🍄









by greys through faith:


sheol? she cells sea shells by the sea shore, say to earn? the god of money.

anyone got the cliffnotes for this thread